Limousine Butte (Limo Butte) - Phase 2 Project Golden Bullet Resource Estimate: $225M Capex
NevGold Corp.'s Limousine Butte (Limo Butte) - Phase 2 Project Golden Bullet in Nevada, USA has a Mineral Resource Estimate outlining initial capital of $225M.
NevGold Corp.'s Limousine Butte (Limo Butte) - Phase 2 Project Golden Bullet has reported Mineral Resource Estimate results for the antimony project in Nevada, USA. It reflects NevGold Corp.'s (NAU.V) latest disclosed economics for the asset.
Economics. Initial capital expenditure is estimated at $225M. Economics are based on AuEq cut-off used assumed metals prices of US$3,000/oz Au and US$40,000 per tonne Sb (~30% discount to spot), with recoveries of 80% Au and 75% Sb.
Production and mine plan. The project envisions an open-pit (oxide, heap leach) operation. Average head grade is 0.25% Sb (Sb M&I); 0.37 g/t Au (Au M&I).
Resources and ownership. The company holds a 100% interest in the project.
These figures are extracted from NevGold Corp.'s technical disclosures and reflect the most recent Resource Estimate on file. Compare this project against other developers and producers in our project economics database, and always verify the numbers against the original technical report before making any investment decision.
Reserves & Resources
| Category | Tonnage | Grade | Contained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measured & Indicated | 9.1 Mt | 0.25% Sb | 22,700 Sb tonnes |
| Inferred | 26.5 Mt | 0.18% Sb | 47,600 Sb tonnes |
| Measured & Indicated | 15.2 Mt | 0.37 g/t Au | 181,400 ozs Au |
| Inferred | 117.5 Mt | 0.32 g/t Au | 1,203,500 ozs Au |
Our Analysis
- Initial capex
- $225M
costlier than 44% of 542 projects we track
- Study price assumption
- AuEq cut-off used assumed metals prices of US$3,000/oz Au and US$40,000 per tonne Sb (~30% discount to spot), with recoveries of 80% Au and 75% Sb
A US$225M build against a US$75M market capitalisation is the whole problem in one line. The company cannot fund this from its own balance sheet, and it cannot raise the equity quietly: issuing shares to cover a sum several times your existing value hands most of the post-build company to new money. That leaves a partner, a joint venture, a royalty or streaming package, or an outright sale of the asset, and each of those routes transfers value away from today's holders. The realistic question is not whether the antimony economics work but who writes the cheque and on what terms.
The study itself does not yet carry the weight the numbers imply. This is a resource estimate, not a feasibility study, so there is no reserve, no mine plan and no capital and operating cost base behind the economics. The cut-off uses assumed prices of US$3,000/oz gold and US$40,000 per tonne antimony with recoveries of 80% for gold and 75% for antimony; those assumptions are inputs to a resource calculation, not a tested economic case, and the returns should be read as indicative until a proper study exists. The capex figure is modest in absolute terms against the 542 projects tracked, which helps at the margin, but modest capex does not solve a micro-cap funding gap.
Nevada is the strongest part of the story: a stable, mining-friendly US jurisdiction lowers permitting and political risk and makes the asset easier to finance or sell to a larger operator. That matters because it widens the pool of counterparties who could fund the build. The company's eight-project portfolio cuts both ways: it spreads risk, but it also means management attention and capital are divided, and this asset may not be the priority. The deciding question is whether a partner can be brought in on terms that fund US$225M without leaving existing holders with a minority stub of the project they already own.
Our take, benchmarked against the project economics in the Mining Stocks database. Figures are estimates drawn from company technical reports — not investment advice; always verify against the source filing.
Get the next one first
Be the first to know about new mining results, and how they compare to other projects.